Hon ble SHARMA, J.—The accused petitioners have filed instant revision petition under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 21.8.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 33/2007 by which bail granted to the accused petitioners was rejected. (2). In short, the facts of the case are that on 14.5.2007 a team was constituted by the Officers of C.B.N. and during checking they stopped one maruti van and they found that upon the seat of Maruti Van three persons were sitting. Upon search they found 2.487 gm opium. Thereafter, a case under sections 8/18(b), 8/25 and 8/29, N.D.P.S. Act was registered against the petitioners. (3). The petitioners moved bail application before the trial Court on 14.7.2008 stating therein that earlier bail applications have been rejected by the trial Court as well as by this Court but looking to the recent verdict of this Court, bail application was allowed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Jaipur vide order dated 29.7.2008. (4). The prosecution being aggrieved with the order dated 29.7.2008 moved an application for cancellation of bail before the same court on the ground that earlier bail application of the accused petitioners have been rejected by this Court. Upon this learned trial Court after hearing cancelled bail application of the accused petitioners vide order dated 21.8.2008. (5). The accused petitioners feeling aggrieved with the order impugned dated 21.8.2008 has preferred the instant criminal revision petition before this Court. (6). Mr. Anil Upman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed grave illegality and irregularity in cancelling the bail order of the accused petitioners because nothing was concealed by the petitioners and it was specifically mentioned in the bail application that earlier bail application was rejected by the trial Court as well as by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the principles of cancellation of bail and grounds of granting and cancellation of bail are entirely different and no advantage can be extended to the prosecution only to the fact that while granting bail they could not produce some material, therefore, in such circumstances when trial is going to be completed bail should not be cancelled. (7). Per contra Mr. (7). Per contra Mr. Laxman Madnani, learned counsel appearing for Union of India submits that earlier bail application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.5.2008 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 2965/2008. The aforesaid order was not brought by the petitioners in the knowledge of the trial Court while it granted benefit of bail to them. (8). I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire material available on record. (9). In my view, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the bail applications of the accused petitioners, as the accused petitioners have concealed the material fact regarding cancellation of bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.8.2008. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. (10). Consequently, the revision is dismissed.